To be fair, the same could be said for the definition of the EUF. ‘A comfortable walk’ for me may differ to my cadets.
If an individual is going to find it challenging then they wouldn’t be offering to run the exercise would they.
10 miles I say because it is far enough to need a map for a younger cadet, but not too far that it’ll take all day - that should take several hours, especially with a few stops for rest.
Non challenging terrain is harder to define - but it shouldn’t be mountainous or dangerous - well marked out footpath routes through flat terrain.
Also keep in mind, that as a training ex staff will be with the cadets the entire time, so if they want to wander off in the wrong direction staff will be there to show them where they are going wrong with the nav…
1 Like
What makes the terrain dangerous?
I don’t know - you tell me - you’ve done the course!
Give me strength.
Precisely my point. You can’t elicit what makes the terrain dangerous; but you want to be allowed to to take other people’s children into it?
I know that the local area where I as a cadet was allowed to run around freely on night ex’s etc isn’t dangerous. It is flat, there is nothing to fall off, it is all marked out with foot path routes. I wouldn’t be driving cadets to the peak district for a practise ex.
I think some common sense can be applied. And if that isn’t allowed then why on earth are allowed to look after cadets on a squadron away from parents anyway.
With the additional safe guard of it having to be approved by the WATTO through SMS, who will be qualified to make a decision if someone does get a little too adventurous and able to ask them to reassess.
All in all, in my opinion, our current system is OTT for simple training ex’s. It is perfectly reasonable for running DofE etc.
I don’t know what else I can add really.
This depends entirely on how you are running the orienteering event. Are you using it to train navigation, or are they taking part in a competitive sporting event?
If the former (which is often the case) the primary function is for navigation training and therefore it’s really no different to a navigation walk elsewhere. Are you letting the cadets loose, or walking with a group of 10 around the course?
How do you know it’s not dangerous? Because nothing happened to you?
I better not leave the house by that reasoning.
Not at all, putting yourself at risk is entirely up to you.
Am I being trolled? I think I’m being trolled.
Nope, I’m just trying to establish the extent of your understanding of the relaxations you are asking for.
I’m more than happy to challenge the status quo, but you’ll need to be able to justify it with better reasoning than ‘I don’t have time to meet the accepted standard, so please lower your standards’.
And yet NNAS only advise 10km over 2 days for a Bronze Course, it’s almost as if NGB’s actually have a system in place rather than plucking ideas out of thin air.
5k a day? I run 5k most mornings before work.
Ok I’m out - as I said I’m not big on the AT thing anyway, just feel that we miss opportunities by making local training too difficult.
If I’m wrong and I can’t walk a cadet round the local village without a qual to say I won’t kill them then I’m wrong!
Sorry for my suggestion, I’ll stick to what I know in future.
I think that that is a little unfair. You cant possible expect @anon9987823 to compile a list of all the terrain that is dangerous? That is what activity specific Risk Assessments are for?
Consolidation of navigation training. Groups of 2, free to run around the park. No hills, small wooded areas, grassed meadows, playpark, and cultivated flower beds. Metaled footpaths. Boating lake with gated access (Staff at the entry point). Non-LLA staff only, but evening fully Risk Assessed, First Aid point, Comms, roaming staff, safety vehicle, cas plan, and Admin Order all in place.
The book says I need LLA. Why?
No one is saying lower our standards. What is being said is that there are some elements of nav training that could be carried out safely, that are currently prohibited by an overly strict qualification regime.
3 Likes
Other than becuase that’s what the organisation has decided?
Because having undergone the training and assessment goes a long way to demonstrating you have the competence to identify and manage the hazards and actually conduct that risk assessment in the first place.
What about my Risk Assessor training? Doesn’t that demonstrate that I have the competence to identify and manage the hazards and actually conduct that risk assessment?
The fact of the matter is that I could run a cross country run under exactly the same circumstances, and not have to have any qualifications. Shove a map, compass, piece of paper and a pencil at the cadets, and all of a sudden I have to hold a LLA?
You can see where people are coming from, surely?
1 Like
No, that just covers your ability to understand and follow the risk assessment process. Would you write a risk assessment for something you knew nothing about? Would you be certain you could identify all of the hazards?
I do see where you are coming from - but looking at the injury statistics, I’m amazed Sports hasn’t gone the same way as AT. It just seems to be accepted that a greater prevalence of injuries is OK in sport, which seems bizarre to me.
1 Like
The fact that we don’t do things properly in some areas isn’t a reason to lower our standards in others, I can’t believe we still get away with the cowboy approach we have to Sports and to an extend fieldcraft.
The whole point is that it’s Navigation Training, distance travelled isn’t important, it’s about providing those key skills in a fun and interesting way so that it sticks and they understand.
Lowland Leader doesn’t even require the Leader to use a Compass at any point with the possible exception of setting a map.
This is why we need people to be trained to these National Standards because what an individual especially a former Cadet who learned Basic Nav might think Is the way to do things or is the standard to aim for might not be anywhere close to what the actual NGB’s are saying.
I would personally tear up the Basic Navigation Manual, remove it from the syllabus and replace it with NNAS being delivered at all 3 levels if I could.
3 Likes
How far do you go with that line of questioning, though? What do I know about building design and integrity? But I’m expected to write a building specific RA.
The last thing anyone wants is for someone to think they are Bear Grylls, use “Nav Training” as a way to run a 100k forced march, and kill a cadet. But lets be realistic, and allow some low level, approved, nav training and Orienteering by non LLA qualified staff.
The general quality of navigation knowledge is poor across most units, but it won’t get better whilst practical training is so prescriptive.
And that is exactly what we’re saying. Teach them the RAFAC syllabus for Navigation. If you get to a bit where the theory doesn’t sink in, then we should be able to organise a session at a local park, country park, or whatever, on the next parade night, so you can put the theory into practice. Arranging such impromptu sessions is next to impossible, unless you have LLA staff on your staff, and an understanding WATTO. Whilst this situation remains, the majority of our cadets navigation skills will continue to be dire IMO.
1 Like